If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Krugman: Conservatives become less willing to look at the facts ... as they become better-educated

Digby sends us to Chris Mooney on how conservatives become less willing to look at the facts, more committed to the views of their tribe, as they become better-educated:

For Republicans, having a college degree didn’t appear to make one any more open to what scientists have to say. On the contrary, better-educated Republicans were more skeptical of modern climate science than their less educated brethren. Only 19 percent of college-educated Republicans agreed that the planet is warming due to human actions, versus 31 percent of non-college-educated Republicans.

But it’s not just global warming where the “smart idiot” effect occurs. It also emerges on nonscientific but factually contested issues, like the claim that President Obama is a Muslim. Belief in this falsehood actually increased more among better-educated Republicans from 2009 to 2010 than it did among less-educated Republicans, according to research by George Washington University political scientist John Sides.

What Chris Mooney is telling us is that this is a vain hope. Highly educated political conservatives — and this includes conservative economists — are going to be less persuadable by empirical evidence than the man or woman in the street. The more holes you poke in doctrines like expansionary austerity or supply-side economics, the more committed they will get to those doctrines.

It's been obvious that republicans have been bound by ideology over real world evidence of what works and what has failed, but I had not seen the evidence of the inverse link with the level of republicans' education and openness to looking at the facts.

These idiots, in their quest to be "all knowing" just totally miss the fucking point.

Krugman has been mixing the Kool aid for the Drones for years. He's merely serving up more potent doses these days.

Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.C. S. LewisDo not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:Ayn Rand

What Krugman is really saying is, "Okay, the debate won't be won by rational argument. So we'll resort to lies, obfuscation, deceit, and the "scientific" agenda that states, 'Where am I gonna get my next grant if I don't convince the politicians and those too stupid to disagree with me that the earth is really warming and humans are responsible for it if I don't lie?'"

What Krugman is really saying is, "Okay, the debate won't be won by rational argument. So we'll resort to lies, obfuscation, deceit, and the "scientific" agenda that states, 'Where am I gonna get my next grant if I don't convince the politicians and those too stupid to disagree with me that the earth is really warming and humans are responsible for it if I don't lie?'"

What Krugman is really saying is, "Okay, the debate won't be won by rational argument. So we'll resort to lies, obfuscation, deceit, and the "scientific" agenda that states, 'Where am I gonna get my next grant if I don't convince the politicians and those too stupid to disagree with me that the earth is really warming and humans are responsible for it if I don't lie?'"

Yep, not to mention ad hominem attacks against those that he cannot beat through persuasion. This is typical Krugman. A few years ago, the NY Times shut down the comments on his blog because economists kept writing in and nuking his arguments. He couldn't out-debate anyone, so they eliminated the forum for the arguments. Krugman's the Barney Fife of the new thought police.

Yep, not to mention ad hominem attacks against those that he cannot beat through persuasion. This is typical Krugman. A few years ago, the NY Times shut down the comments on his blog because economists kept writing in and nuking his arguments. He couldn't out-debate anyone, so they eliminated the forum for the arguments. Krugman's the Barney Fife of the new thought police.

And then when the masses take to his blog to show how little he really knows about the real world...he shuts it down to any and all comments.

Better educated people understand the science is always evolving. Any serious scientific explanations for global warming always include qualifiers such as "could" or "may" because people who understand science aren't arrogant enough to think that man knows everything. The press and the ecotards always translate these words into does and will while claiming GW is "settled science."